STAYERS AND QUITTERS

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, Ms Irene Ng just now has mentioned that SM Lee Kuan Yew, who was then the Prime Minister, in 1967 had also spoken about stayers and quitters. At that time, the British were withdrawing their troops. That meant that Singapore was losing something like 20% of its income. In the face of that very difficult condition, I think when he mentioned "stayers" and "quitters", it was a challenge to Singaporeans to stay behind and help build Singapore. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong also alluded to stayers and quitters in his recent National Day Rally speech. But, this time, he is referring to the younger Singaporeans who apparently have not known hardship. SM Lee mentioned the words "stayers" and "quitters" something like 35 years ago. They were different times. At that time, Singaporeans were very poor and unemployment was rife. It was definitely difficult even to get a job.

But I believe the class of people that SM Lee referred to 35 years ago, the people whom he wanted them to stay behind to help build Singapore, were in the same class as the people that PM Goh has mentioned today. They were the educated and professional class. They were needed in Singapore to help build the country. But, of course, not all left when the chips were down. Many were still committed to Singapore. But, however, apparently today, young Singaporean professionals are leaving our shores. There is an increase in the number of Singaporeans migrating, a rise from 14% last October to 21% this July. It would appear that basically Singaporeans are still the same and have not changed. In bad times, some also want to leave Singapore. And even in good times, they also want to leave Singapore.

So the issue is: Is there anything wrong with that? I personally do not think so. I think the issue is whether or not Singaporeans are committed to Singapore. Why is the Government so alarmed when there are professionals emigrating from Singapore? I can understand why the PAP is so alarmed. Probably they think that they will have less talent pool to select their election candidates. I think one of the strongest reasons why young professionals are leaving is because they are not rooted here. There must be something wrong with the education system that does not make them emotionally attached to this country. Of course, the physical environment has completely changed. Probably in the earlier years of these youngsters, they saw a different Singapore. Their early physical surroundings have all been destroyed. We see that old buildings are so readily torn down to be replaced by high-rise flats, condominiums and shopping complexes. Their old surroundings are completely gone and the whole place is unrecognisable to these youngsters. Young Singaporeans have become strangers in their own homeland.

Some of the influences that cause Singaporeans to migrate are Government policies which force some of them to go overseas and want to remain overseas. One of such policies is that the Government does not recognise university degrees obtained through distance learning. I have been told that degrees obtained through distance learning are as good as the ones obtained from actually going overseas to study. But, unfortunately, the Government does not think so. The Government's excuse is that distance learning does not involve the intermingling of these students with other students. The Government feels that the intermingling of students when one goes overseas to study is important.

But, Sir, I must say that the more important issue is whether or not the degrees obtained from distance learning are as high a standard as those obtained by the students going overseas to study. The Government must make sure that those organising distance learning give degrees which are of high quality and recognise them, so that our students need not go overseas. Once they go overseas, of course, there is a greater tendency for them to live overseas.

Sir, in the case of law degrees, the Government has stopped recognising external law degrees, that is, those degrees obtained by distance learning or through correspondence course. Those degrees that are obtained by correspondence are not recognised by the Government. So, this kind of a policy, of course, forces more of our students to go overseas to study. Once the students have gone overseas to study and experienced overseas life, it would therefore be more likely that they will migrate if given a chance to do so, since they have already lived overseas before.

Sir, I do not think it is fair to call those wanting to live overseas as "quitters". In fact, all our forefathers were "quitters". Have they done something wrong by leaving their homeland? I certainly do not think so. They left their home country to find a better life in the South seas. In fact, if it were not for those so-called "quitters", Singapore may not have been what it is today. Nearly all our first generation political leaders were "quitters". Their forefathers migrated to Malaysia and, in turn, they came to Singapore from Malaysia. In fact, many of our judges and top administrators can also be termed as "quitters." They were mostly from Malaysia.

Sir, I do not think that there is anything wrong for Singaporeans to leave Singapore and live abroad, and they should not be labelled as "quitters". I think we should not be unduly worried if Singaporeans do go abroad to live. I believe that many of these Singaporeans who go abroad to stay there still maintain their Singapore citizenship. They all still view Singapore as their home. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many Singaporeans living abroad have given up their Singapore citizenship. I believe the number is not that many.

Sir, it is a pity, on the one hand, the Singapore Government encourages Singaporeans to be entrepreneurial and to go abroad to the region and even further afield to live and do business and, on the other hand, we tend to label those who go abroad to stay as "quitters". So, I think the Government in some respect is giving confusing signals to the people. The Government should not label Singaporeans who go abroad as "quitters" at all. There is, in fact, nothing wrong for Singaporeans to go abroad either to stay or to do business, or for the sake of their children's education. Going abroad is not an easy thing. It needs a lot of courage. It needs a lot of effort to go abroad. And I think the Government should be glad that Singaporeans are going abroad or are courageous enough to go abroad. In the long term, if Singaporeans do go abroad, it should be a good thing for Singapore, as the world will then be open to Singapore, but so long as they remain committed to Singapore.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate.

I stand in support of the Motion and before I actually begin on the points I wanted to raise, it would be useful to deal with the definition of "quitters" and "stayers", because there appears to be some misconception on this. There has been a lot of heated debate on who is a quitter, who is a stayer, and part of the misconception appears to be from a misunderstanding of what the Prime Minister actually said. That same misunderstanding was actually reflected in Mr Chiam's speech just now.

The misunderstanding is this. Some people seem to think that just because you leave Singapore, you are necessarily a quitter. That is not what the Prime Minister said. If you actually look at the text of his speech, and for those who were sitting there listening to him, he made it quite clear that those who are quitters are those who have severed their emotional links and ties with Singapore, those who will not come back to the aid of Singapore or contribute to Singapore as and when needed. Just because somebody lives or works abroad does not mean that he or she is a quitter. So long as they are emotionally connected, so long as they care for Singapore, so long as they want to contribute in some way, that person is very much a stayer. So, then, we have to ask ourselves, having regard to the third generation Singaporeans and the fact that with increased mobility in today's globalised world, what is it that actually makes a person want to quit or leave, or to sever his or her emotional ties with Singapore. I think, in this regard, there are actually two factors that we must make a distinction. One is the pull factor, and the other is the push factor. I think pull factors are where the person does not really have anything against Singapore but is just attracted to opportunities or things abroad. Take lawyers, for example, who have graduated in Singapore but want the opportunity to work abroad with offshore firms simply because of being able to obtain a different experience, in terms of type of work, live in another country, get to meet different people, experience a different lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with that. There is every reason to believe that, in years to come, they will return to Singapore and hopefully bring with them the skills and the experience that they have acquired abroad. I therefore do not see the pull factors as particularly disturbing.

What I think we should be careful about are the push factors. People are people. What makes a person feel alienated or not want to stay in a place? That only happens when a person feels that he or she cannot progress, or somehow is not part or cannot progress up in a system. If you really analyse it, the human want and human need are quite basic. People want safety and security. And in Singapore, that is not an issue. We do have a safe and secure society. So that is taken care of.

The second thing that people want is a certain amount of personal happiness and that comes from being able to work, being able to have a certain means by which you can live and being able to achieve their aspirations. And that brings us really to the third point which, I think, is the most critical component of a push factor and, that is, whether or not that person has the ability to achieve his or her aspiration in Singapore. And if a person cannot, that is when a person feels pushed to leave. And the key to all of that is education. I think education and our education policy is the single most important factor in influencing a Singaporean's decision as to whether or not to stay or to quit.

I want to say, at the outset, that, by and large, we have an extremely good education system. If you look at it, Singapore in the region has one of the most highly educated populations. It has enabled us to achieve an outstanding level of economic progress. But I do think that there is room for refinement and I do think that it is important to listen to some of the feedback that we have got from especially the young parents. Because, in every feedback session, there will be something said about education, and usually you will find that it touches on the complaints, and the comments are many and varied. But when you actually analyse them, it falls into two large groups. One is stress, and the other is the ability to choose or, at least, to have a certain freedom from restriction in choice of subject. And for many young Singaporeans, especially couples, when I speak to them and I ask them about issues like these, they are happy to stay in Singapore for themselves. But they say that if they leave at all, it will be really because of their children's education.

Perhaps what I can do is to illustrate it by three or four examples. One example is school ranking. I know that the Ministry of Education has defended school ranking quite vigorously, and the response has been that, to some extent, it is the parents who put a lot of pressure on the children. But, in Singapore, people and parents love their children. They want their children to progress. So, obviously, they want their children to be able to make it in the system. So they are going to look at the system. We place a lot of emphasis on scholastic achievement and they want their children to be able to achieve the standard that the system requires in order for them to progress. So the school ranking system actually puts a lot of pressure on the children and parents because what will happen is that the school feels the need to perform. So the teachers transfer this pressure down to the students and parents, and the parents of course pressure their children as well.

So I do not think ranking per se is a bad thing because you need an element of competition. But I think the system could be fine-tuned. Suggestions have been made that, for example, instead of ranking each school individually, we should rank them in band, or rank them according to types of subjects. In other words, broaden the definition of success, alleviate some of the pressure and allow people a greater degree of choice. One of the things that has happened as a result of the push for ranking is that Literature has suffered simply because Mathematics and Science are perceived as the subjects in which it is easier to score in. It is not that you cannot do Literature. But it is just that if you think it is easier to score in Mathematics and Science, that is something that you will take, and Literature suffers as a result. And that also has an impact on society because it has an impact on the way we speak, the creativity and, basically, Literature is good for social interaction. So with the doing away or people not taking up Literature as much, it has a social impact. That is just one example.

Another example that has been raised is why is it that Singaporean children cannot study in international schools. Some parents do not understand why there is this policy and feel that they would like their children to have the choice to study in an international school, if possible.

The third example was something that was raised in the feedback session for the Indian community. The feedback was given that an Indian boy studying in school was not allowed to take Japanese because he did not have Mandarin as a first language. The unhappiness there was that Japanese was available to be taught, but he was not allowed to do it because he did not have Mandarin. I am not sure, because it was not raised at the feedback session, whether this was the Ministry of Education's policy, or whether it was simply the school. It could well be that they felt he would have better chances of scoring in Japanese if he had a Mandarin base. But the problem is that when you tell a person that he cannot do something where he has an interest and he wants to do it, it denies him a chance of a personal aspiration. Then it makes him feel that he cannot progress and he cannot move up into the system. It is little, little things like that that basically make parents want to move to give their children a better chance in another system.

So, at the end of the day, I do not think we have a bad education system. I happen to think that we have a very good one. But I do think that it can be fine-tuned and that the Government should take into account the feedback. I do not propose to set out the whole list of recommendations for the simple reason that the Remaking Singapore Committee is in the process of doing this. All I ask is that the Government do very seriously consider the feedback and the suggestions on education policy that will be in the Committee's Report because a lot of profile has been generated by the Remaking Singapore Committee. As a result of that, expectations have been raised. I think that if there is a genuine response to the suggestions and recommendations, people, especially Singaporeans, will feel that their wants and aspirations are taken into account, that there is a direct response and that the feeling of connection between Singaporeans and the Government will be much closer as a result.

With that, I support the Motion.